http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/62290
It is interesting that U.S. is moving 6000MW from coal to gas in order to reduce air pollution but UK moving similar amount to biomass with knowledge moving to gas would maximise improvement in UK air quality.
It is ironic that UK is to import millions of tonnes of wood from USA to burn at Tilbury.
Is it CO2 rules or subsidy drives choice? Either way air quality appears to be the the loser for UK.

Doubtless will be used by some as an excuse to cut them down to feed the furnaces! The article itself is dangerously short on detail, so I guess you'd have to go to the actual study itself to find out whether they factored-in all the KNOWN variables. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2006/final/threats/threat_deforest.html

Interesting side reference alongside that article... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20583-conflict-of-interest-claimed-for-ipcc-energy-report.html ...although the 'presence' of Mark Lynas, viewed by the Green Establishment as the Great Apostate, will be seen as a reason to write-off the criticism as sour grapes. Given the significance of the implications within that piece, I think it deserves a thread of its own so see: http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=7506

Apparently we intend to import 10% of world biomass availabilty, will this be part of the cost?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/02/biofuels-land-grab-kenya-delta?commentpage=2#start-of-comments

Report in today’s Yorkshire Post details Miscanthus( elephant grass) presents yield problems in marginal land and requires fertile conditions which points to direct competition with food production. Eucalyptus was put forward as ideal biomass source but recently found to be unable to withstand UK climatic conditions. DECC report Jun 2011 details biomass proposals will require 90% import and details large plants will divert resources from smaller <50MW in adjacent Counties.
Drax already burning 1 million tonnes of biomass detail projects requiring 10-40million tonnes with satellite pelleting plants increasing fuel energy density allowing much greater sourcing distance. Four current <50MW local biomass proposals ignore this with the crazy situation either Local Authorities appear to nod through application or any refusal resulting from local impact concerns is overruled by Gov inspector. Why burn in lower efficiency plants and divert feedstock away from coal burning units where biomass use is known to directly help reduce environmental impact?. Bio-ethanol plants are currently closed due to lack of feedstock in UK, we are failing to prioritise best use of our resources, proposal to give biomass combustion subsidy parity with wind will have obvious impact on UK land usage, degrade UK air quality and most important impact on health ( unless of course used in coal fired power plants) . Where is joined up thinking and duty of care?

Posted By: JoinerNorth Coast of Britain, in a place called Europe,

Maybe not that far, just under the North Sea

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/drax_capable_of_moving_largely_to_biomass_for_generator_fuel_1_3639213

Drax current output reported to be 3960MW plus proposal for 3 no. dedicated 290MW biomass plants all awaiting Gov confirmation of £billions in subsidy before proceeding. We are aware feedstock needs will require 90% import but depending on level of subsidy large areas of UK will obviously be converted to dedicated biomass monoculture. Current proposals point to 25% of available agricultural land required in order to give credibility to any energy sustainability claims for providing 10% of our power needs. Source previously detailed in posts.
Joiner is correct in raising health concern in softwood biomass thread ,I note recent report adding to PM concerns confirming link between exposure to fine particle pollution and strokes, scrutiny of a current biomass proposal output 36MW is detailed to create particulate levels equating to 6,816,000,000 km travelled by diesel vehicles in local impact area.
Owlman- I am currently relaxing enjoying the seaside but have one eye open and aware have to try and be more careful where I post combustion impact concerns to avoid upsetting purists among us. Can only try and behave. Just to say cost of biomass is rapidly increasing and the this will be the future, due to be a traded commodity, current projects highlight some 60 million tonnes plus import requirement, hospitals and schools gaining large subsidies for conversion, communities encouraged to invest in biomass energy schemes etc.

Noted article by award winning Sarah Lonsdale (how to be green and stay sane) published in Sunday Telegraph. Have been trying to establish method of transfer to GBF but no success to date. The article includes a variety of data that could be of interest to woodburning enthusiasts among us but also includes detail that appears to warrant serious scrutiny.
Pellet boiler fuel cost detailed at 4 to 4.5p per kWh, reports Verdo pellet manufacture claims production is around 10 times that of demand stating “there is much more of Britain covered in woodland than people think and in the past few years it has been much better managed so we now export much of our pellets”. This totally conflicts with reports that UK already imports 73% of pellet needs and the recent official Gov report published by DECC/Arup detailing UK will need to import 90% of needs, totally reversing Verdo claim in article. Article details woodland costs between 7, 000 -£10,000/acre in England, £5,000- £6,000 in Wales and Scotland. otherwise log boiler cost 2-3p/kWh.. Recommends scavenging timber from skips which should be a total no-no due to contamination impact. Totally ignores data detailing log boiler hazardous emissions close to coal and pellet systems detailed 30 times dirtier than combustion alternatives.
Article is headed “Sarah tests the latest eco products and sorts fads from the finds. This week wood heating“.
Where is due diligence and duty of care especially when I note there is now a campaign for supporting subsidy of biomass combustion headed by massive users such as Drax and supported by Energy Minister? Who will pay the cost for a policy decision that deliberately degrades air quality ? The Minister claims burning biomass will reinforce energy security but how does moving from 50% import requirement to 90% import provide security especially when deliberately placing reliance on the most volatile feedstock imported thousands of miles?
Do the powers that be really need to provide any further proof that the lunatics have taken over the asylum or is it a case of protestation is pointless when serious money is to be made by the few with application of greenwash and exploiting the energy needs of the vulnerable public ?

Nowt wrong with wood out of skips. That's where a fair amount of mine has come from. Nice old wood from before everything became CCA treated is fine. The CCA obsession will make it all useless eventually. It annoyed me that I had to use CCA timber in my recent build (apart from the glulam - for some reason it's OK that that''s not treated, but then it's got a load of glue in it which it may not be wise to burn).

Brain - don't you need to work out who's right between Verdo and the other report you refer to on import/export statistics? Of course what they both say is not contradictory: Verdo can export a lot and other people can import a lot at the same time. That's just trade (although probably not the most efficient way of arranging things).

I didn't think CCA timber had been used for a few years now, not since the world got more sensitive to environmental issues, the chromated copper arsenate (nasty stuff anyway) having been replaced by a copper based stuff. When I worked at the mill we used to have a blood test every six months to check on whether we'd been drinking the stuff - OK, absorbing it in the course of our work. Housekeeping at the place was never up to scratch and we often used to wonder how much of the stuff leached out of the site into the neighbouring watercourse. The owner just used to shrug if anyone asked the question.

Trouble with skip-scavenged stuff is that it'll be old enough to be the CCA type, which should actually be disposed of as hazardous waste. I sure as hell wouldn't burn it.

"Trouble with skip-scavenged stuff is that it'll be old enough to be the CCA type..."

Another reason not to cut the trees down:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110914161729.htm

Posted By: tonyThe big problem with that theory is that ALL the energy comes back when it condenses!!!

You mean as is stated in even the abbreviated news story? "Also, the energy taken up in evaporating water is released back into the environment when the water vapor condenses and returns to earth, mostly as rain. Globally, this cycle of evaporation and condensation moves energy around, but cannot create or destroy energy. So, evaporation cannot directly affect the global balance of energy on our planet."

Are these people scientists? ---

Or do you mean they bit where they actually explain what they're thinking? "Increased evaporation tends to cause clouds to form low in the atmosphere, which act to reflect the sun's warming rays back out into space. This has a cooling influence."

Depends on cloud type that does, think thick and low insulate and high and thin radiate but to a lesser extent. Jury is still out on it I think. Cloud cover is the least understood aspect of the climate.

Edit:
Thinking about it and trying to remember something I read on it a while back I think that is the wrong way around.
Think low cloud radiates more energy, stopping the land warming up and re-radiating, this leads to a net reduction in radiative forcing at low altitudes. I think this is why the equator is not as hot as it should be and and part of the reasons that the Sahara is very dry and hot. 40 North is generally the sunniest and longest hours of sunshine on the planet. Partly why the US/Canadian border has such a strange climate for its latitude.

Science doesn't work like that anymore, you need to make a FOI request to get a look at the data.

There's mention of an EU scientific report in a news article that starts:

'A scientific committee of the European Union has published a report arguing that EU policies favoring biofuels are based on a "serious" error in calculating the overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fuels. The result, says the committee, is an underestimation that could have "immense" climate-related consequences.'

The news article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38636/?ref=rss and the scientific report is at http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance/scientific-committee/sc-opinions/opinions-on-scientific-issues/sc-opinion-on-greenhouse-gas